Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Shri Vijay Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Senior Booking Clerk impugns order of penalty dated 28.02.2006, appellate order dated 21.06.2006, upholding the punishment as well as revisional order dated 23.04.2007.2. On the ground of shortage of cash, amounting to Rs. 73/- a show cause notice for minor penalty when responded to led to a minor penalty, against which an appeal preferred was also turned down. In the revision petition applicant has apprised the authorities as to the fact that during the month of September 2005 when the check was made, as many as 90 Booking Clerks of New Delhi Booking Office, which has a total strength of 140, reported shortage of cash of more Rs. 200/- but no action had been taken against them. The Tribunal by an order dated 18.7.2007 directed respondents to produce the record of revision where the aforesaid fact was confirmed, as admitted by the learned Counsel of respondents.3. Learned Counsel of applicant assails the punishment being discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti...

Raj Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Director General, Central Excise and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT1; 2008(229)ELT350(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem fit and proper.2. Earlier, the Petitioner had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) which came to be decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of the Orders dated 4.12.2007. It was decided that the Petitioner be admitted to bail on his depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in two installments, initially Rs. 50,00,000/- to be deposited after one month from the date of his release, and the remainder Rs. 50,00,000/- after three months of the first deposit. On these conditions the Petitioner was admitted to bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge. In the event, this Bail Order has not been availed of by the Petitioner. Instead, he had assailed the Order dated 4.12.2007 by wa...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. D. Pal and Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)2CompLJ245(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the respondents in each of these matters has entered appearance after noting the same in the cause list. She states that she is ready to argue the matter on the papers already filed.2. These eight petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) challenging separate awards but all dated 31.10.2006 passed by the same sole arbitrator, Mr R.S. Jindal. The objections taken in respect of the awards (which are more or less identical) are the same and it is for this reason that this batch of petitions is being disposed of by this common order.3. These cases have had a chequered history and, thereforee, it would be necessary to set out some facts. Certain disputes had arisen between the parties. Notices were issued by the respondents to the petitioner invoking the arbitration clause (Clause 25) and seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms thereof. No r...

Mokha Builders and Promoters Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. Heard ld. Jt. CDR. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. From the record, I find that on the earner hearing when application for condonation of delay was allowed, the appellants were unrepresented.3. The appellant filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby refund of the appellant was rejected. The appellants were registered with the Revenue authorities as provider of service of construction of residential complex. The appellant paid the Service Tax and thereafter filed refund application on the ground that they do not come under the service of Service Tax on the service of construction of residential complex. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim the appellant filed appeal the same was rejected.4. In the present appeal, the contention of the appellant is that the appellants are not liable to pay the Service Tax and in respect of unjust enrichment. T...

Bas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ47CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. Learned Advocate stated that in respect of the authorized dealers service there is no dispute. The appellants were actually discharging the service tax liability. In respect of the second category namely business auxiliary service, the facts are that the appellants received commissions from the financier in respect of the cars financed by them.The appellants were not aware of the clear legal position, but once they know that this service is taxable under the category of business auxiliary service w.e.f. 1^st July 2003 they on their own on two occasions namely 30^th November 2004 and 2^nd March 2005 discharged the entire service tax liability of Rs. 79,67,976/-. After a gap of seventeen months, the department issued a show cause notice for demanding the service tax and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act. In the first show cause notice Section 78 was not at all invoked. However, after 31/2 months, a corrigendum was issued invoking Section 78 also. The adjudic...

P.S. Chhikara S/O Late Shri D.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, second respondent herein on 26.04.2006 had issued an order in the following lines: On the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission, the President is pleased to appoint by transfer, Dr. D. Venkatesan to the post of Deputy Director of Census Operations in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200 in this office w.e.f. 16.10.2005. 2. Dr. D. Venkatesan, who has been on deputation against the post since 16.10.2000, shall be placed junior to all the DDCOs in position on the date of his absorption.2. The applicant submits that already working on deputation as Deputy Director there, he was also desirous of getting an appointment by transfer to the said post, and he had made requests as far back as on 25.04.2003, 01.05.2005 and 28.10.2005, which, however, were not condescended to. He had also reiterated a similar request on 12.09.2006, as could be gatherable from Annexure A-5, but was not obliged with a posting. As a matter o...

SachIn Panwar, Recruit Constable Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sachin Panwar, the applicant herein, has been disqualified in the final result that was declared for recruitment of Constables in Delhi Police, vide order dated 23rd March, 2007. His representation against the order aforesaid found no favour with the respondents as the same was rejected vide order dated 19.6.2007. These are the orders which have been challenged by the applicant in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the application, would reveal that the applicant is a candidate for recruitment as Constable (Executive) with the respondents, in response to a recruitment advertisement / notice issued in 2006 (Annexure A-3). The applicant is seeking relaxation in the maximum age being a sportsman of distinction.The maximum age fixed by the respondents was 21 years as on 1.1.2006.The same was relaxable by 5 years, for certain categories including for sportsmen of distinction who have...

K.K. Kaushik S/O J.R. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri K. K. Kaushik, ACP/Special Cell, the applicant herein, mutually exchanged the government quarter allotted to him with the one allotted to his son-in-law. He vacated the exchanged quarter before expiry of two years. The respondents in view of the applicant vacating the exchanged quarter allotted to him, refused to sanction house rent allowance (HRA) and further debarred him for allotment of government accommodation for the current year under the provisions of Standing Order (SO) No. 3/2006, vide order dated 12.6.2006. The two representations made by the applicant against the order aforesaid were rejected vide orders dated 13.7.2006 and 17.11.2006. These are the orders that have been challenged by the applicant in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Whereas Shri L. R. Khatana, the learned Counsel representing the applicant, in his endeavour to set aside the impugned orders would primarily urge that the SO No. 3/2006 (Anne...

Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Bihari Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Pradeep Kumar, the applicant herein, as per the case set up by him in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was appointed as a Tabla Player/Attendant/Helper to the Music Teacher with respondent No. 5 on 1.10.1980. He claims to be a class IV employee. On 23.11.1990, the applicant joined with the respondent No. 6. It is his case that he is performing his duties during school hours right from first period till last period on full time basis regularly as a Tabla Player/Attendant to the Music Teacher. Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education is said to have issued circular No. DE/22/6/6/87/PFC/1815-1884 on 22.3.2000, by which the post of the applicant is duly covered. It is his further case that he has completed far more than three years service and is, therefore, entitled to be confirmed on full time permanent basis and to get entire service benefits. The first respondent is also said to have issued circular dated...

Si (Exe.) Shyam Sunder S/O Shri Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 provides that for encouraging outstanding sportsmen, marksmen and officers who have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty, the Commissioner of Police with prior approval of the Administrator has power to promote such officers to the next higher rank, if vacancies exist and within specified limits. Such promotions are to be treated as ad hoc and incumbents are to be regularized after successfully completing the training course prescribed.2. The question is whether because of his exceptional contribution now claimed, as of right, applicant is entitled to demand such a premature promotion, and whether the respondents had failed to examine the matter objectively.3. In fact, our attention has been invited to a circular, as Annexure-6, which is framed in line with the above noted statutory prescription. Strict parameters have been laid down so as to ensure that in the case of gallantry, for recognition hig...